I am buying a desktop for my family. Since I am lazy, and desktops are generally quite cheap anyways now, I will likely order a Dell. I haven't known much about personal computers for about 7-8 years, so I would like some suggestions. It isn't going to be a gaming computer, just a computer that will run quickly/smoothly and stay good for general purpose applications for a long time.
How much RAM should I get?
Which processor should I get?
Which graphics card?
Any sound system recommendations? (I want this to be really nice)
Money isn't a big issue, although I would probably like it stay under $1500.
I'm not an expert, so I can't help your question. However, I want to make a recommentation. :)
If possible, you should buy a Dell that comes with Linux, then install Windows on top. Doing this supports Dell's Linux program, which is good, and also supports hardware manufacturers that support open source, which is something important to me.
Of course, that only works if you have a copy of Windows XP that you can install. Personally, I would do that anyways because I couldn't imagine my parents using Vista, which is what you'll probably end up having to get. They have enough trouble figuring out what's going on on XP.
You can still get XP on (some) dells by default.
Quote from: Hitmen on July 28, 2007, 07:24:25 PM
You can still get XP on (some) dells by default.
Truth.
Quote from: Rule on July 28, 2007, 04:24:07 PM
It isn't going to be a gaming computer, just a computer that will run quickly/smoothly and stay good for general purpose applications for a long time.
How much RAM should I get?
Which processor should I get?
Which graphics card?
Any sound system recommendations? (I want this to be really nice)
Money isn't a big issue, although I would probably like it stay under $1500.
For RAM, I'd say a gig is near overkill for anything non-gaming. Hell, I game pretty heavily and I only have a gig. A gig works for this. If you want it to last in the long run, consider a gig and a half if you can. But a gig works nicely, even with Vista.
Processor-wise I can't say much for 32-bit vs 64-bit, but you don't need much of a processor. Maybe a mid-range to high-range one.
On-board graphics should suffice if you don't plan to game, and if you feel you want to eventually, you can pick up a card yourself. I do recommend nVidia over AMD/ATi, though. :)
I can't help you with the sound system. Not much of an audiophile. If you're really interested in the sound system, hit up the foobar2k forums. They're all big fanatics for audio and could probably point you in the direction of a pretty badass sound system.
I'm no expert, like iago said, but those are some sound suggestions that I would take. I just pieced together some computers for a small office, and that sounds like what we did. Minus the sound system. Why would you need sound when you work for a vagina doctor, mainly in documents/spreadsheets all day? :p
Just to give you an idea, I've been pondering buying a new computer and putting it together from parts on NewEgg.
I figured I could do Intel's Q6600 quad-core processor, 4 gigs of memory, 400gb hd, etc. for about $1300. The only thing I don't include is a monitor or sound card(aside from the stuff built into the motherboard and it'll work fine for me). So you really shouldn't be settling for less if it ends up being in the same price range.
Quote from: zorm on July 29, 2007, 12:24:10 AM
Just to give you an idea, I've been pondering buying a new computer and putting it together from parts on NewEgg.
I figured I could do Intel's Q6600 quad-core processor, 4 gigs of memory, 400gb hd, etc. for about $1300. The only thing I don't include is a monitor or sound card(aside from the stuff built into the motherboard and it'll work fine for me). So you really shouldn't be settling for less if it ends up being in the same price range.
Newegg refuses to sell to us Canadians, so Rule isn't entitled to the same deals as you :(
Quote from: iago on July 29, 2007, 12:26:57 AM
Newegg refuses to sell to us Canadians, so Rule isn't entitled to the same deals as you :(
Ah, I forgot all about that. Sucks for you Canadians, maybe you should upgrade to a real country?
Something rather amusing, I placed an order with Newegg on Thursday and they're shipping me 3 boxes. 1 from CA, 1 from NJ and 1 from TX.
I thought Rule was in California?
Anyway buy mine! ;D
Quote from: Trust on July 29, 2007, 01:55:58 AM
I thought Rule was in California?
Anyway buy mine! ;D
lol. I live in Pasadena part time, so newegg is an option. (:P at iago).
How much faster is the "Intel® Core™ 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)" than the "Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)"?
Quote from: Rule on July 29, 2007, 02:20:03 AM
lol. I live in Pasadena part time, so newegg is an option. (:P at iago).
How much faster is the "Intel® Core™ 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)" than the "Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6600 (4MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,1066 FSB)"?
From what I remember reading, its not any faster and the Q6600 is basically two E6600s slapped together.
Just a note if you're planning to buy parts in the near future, the price on the Q6600 has been very unstable on Newegg as of late. Intel cut prices and as such Newegg seemed to drop their price, but then it went back up. I think they're playing the capitalist game, so I'd wait for the price to settle down and hopefully it will be below $300. I don't know about the other processors but be watchful.
Rule, I'm sorry to hijack your thread here, but since it's relevant and you might find use in the comments people post on this, I'm going to put this here. If you'd like me to split it off, just say the word and it's done.
Long, annoying URL leading to my wishlist (https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/PublicWishDetail.asp?WishListNumber=5648312&WishListTitle=New+Computer+%281%29%3F)
My current PC is (the "important" stats):
AMD 3400+, Asus KN8-E Delux Motherboard, 1 GB RAM, XFX 6800 GT 256 MB
This is a "wish list" and I'm looking for some comments/critique. I'm not sure if it's overkill, but I'd like it to last 2-3 years, as the one I'm currently running is plugging along quite well running on 3 years with a few upgrades. I don't do a whole lot of gaming, but I do occasionally install/play new PC games (the most recent has been Halo 2, which runs pretty choppy on my current machine).
A couple of notes: I could easily knock the hard drive off that list because I have a 120 GB, 160 GB and 3 250 GB (which I'm currently using in a RAID 0 configuration to store my media/programs. It's about 40% full) at my disposal. I've intentionally left out a monitor (I already have two 19" LCD's which are both 2 and 3 years old, but they seem to be doing fine) and all of the other obvious peripherals (it is my intention to reuse any of the hardware that doesn't really affect the performance of the PC).
It's important to me that the motherboard I get supports RAID. I'd like to just stick the current drives in and have it work, but I know that's not realistic. I'll be moving around data getting things back on, I'm sure, but the RAID stats on the motherboard I have marked seemed a bit "shady". Can anyone confirm that it'd work with a RAID 0 with 3 drives?
Thanks in advance to anyone who has some input on this.
Edit -- Updated the list. Ergot pointed out that the CPU is retail, so I didn't need a CPU fan/heatsink. I also took off the hard drive and the video card I had picked out and replaced it with a EVGA 8800 GTS 320 MB.
Anyone have anything to say about the AMD chips?
I am currently considering a few different configurations. What do you think about this? I am looking for something relatively inexpensive that will stay running smoothly and be able to run new general purpose applications and not need to be upgraded for a really long time.
Price: $1000, Dell.
Quote
PROCESSOR AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 4000+, English edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium, English edit
MEMORY 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs edit
HARD DRIVE 320GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ edit
SOUND CARD Integrated Sound Blaster®Audigy™ HD Software Edition edit
VIDEO CARD 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT-DDR3 edit
OPTICAL DRIVE 16x DVD+/-RW Drive edit
MONITOR 19 inch SE198WFP Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor edit
Edit: Also, I'm wondering whether I should seriously consider getting a quad-core processor, in order to keep my system "up to date" for a long period of time. In what instances would I notice a big difference in efficiency between the quad and the dual?
And what's better,
Intel® Core™ 2 E6320 Duo Processor(4MB L2 cache,1.86GHz,1066FSB), or
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 4000+?
(I'm guessing the Intel is. Is there a significant difference?)
AMD in desktop is maybe ok, keep it cool. It's a jew in a laptop :(.
What I want to know is why you're wasting money getting a dual core if all that you intend to do with the computer is browse websites, check e-mail, and use chatting programs or whatever. Also, you will be throwing out even more money if you buy a quad-core (especially the Intel quad core.. it's not even a real quad core. :P). Few programs utilize multiple cores--and you don't need multiple cores to run day-to-day programs like Firefox. Hell, I run Firefox with few hiccups on a 400MHz processor back from the 90s.
CPU Comparison charts: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
AMD's are fine for desktops. And liek Crazed said it sucks on a laptop (hot and drains batteries fast).
You don't need dual core unless you're using intensive multithreaded applications (ie 3D rendering, video editing, etc.)
Build a computer.
PROCESSOR: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 4000+, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103774
$69.99
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI MCP ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131013
$139.99
MEMORY Not good with memory.
HARD DRIVE SAMSUNG SpinPoint T Series HD501LJ 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152052
$119.99
SOUND CARD Integrated with motherboard
VIDEO CARD XFX PVT73GUGD3 GeForce 7600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150182
$124.99
OPTICAL DRIVE PHILIPS Black 20X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R DL 20X DVD-R 8X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 24X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache IDE interface (ATAPI) DVD Burner - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827248006
$33.99
MONITOR Acer AL1916 Cb Black 19" 5ms LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1 - Retail, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009114
$179.99
That list comes to: 668.94 without taxes. And it's a hell of a lot better than brand named PC's.
If someone wants to find some ram for that mobo, feel free.
Quote from: deadly7 on July 31, 2007, 01:04:07 AM
What I want to know is why you're wasting money getting a dual core if all that you intend to do with the computer is browse websites, check e-mail, and use chatting programs or whatever.
It will also be used for scientific computation. "General purpose" is intended to mean most modern applications/developments over the next 10 years or so. With this in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to get a single processor, when the dual-cores are currently minimal in price.
Quote from: deadly7 on July 31, 2007, 01:04:07 AM
Also, you will be throwing out even more money if you buy a quad-core (especially the Intel quad core.. it's not even a real quad core. :P). Few programs utilize multiple cores--and you don't need multiple cores to run day-to-day programs like Firefox. Hell, I run Firefox with few hiccups on a 400MHz processor back from the 90s.
Sure, right now there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I could see most software being written for multiple processors in the near future. But I don't know for sure, so that's part of why I made this thread.
Also, right now at Dell, the difference between the quad-core and dual-core is about $50, so I would go with the quad core if I don't get the AMD.
Quote from: Rule on July 31, 2007, 12:41:59 PM
Quote from: deadly7 on July 31, 2007, 01:04:07 AM
What I want to know is why you're wasting money getting a dual core if all that you intend to do with the computer is browse websites, check e-mail, and use chatting programs or whatever.
It will also be used for scientific computation. "General purpose" is intended to mean most modern applications/developments over the next 10 years or so. With this in mind, I think it would be short-sighted to get a single processor, when the dual-cores are currently minimal in price.
Quote from: deadly7 on July 31, 2007, 01:04:07 AM
Also, you will be throwing out even more money if you buy a quad-core (especially the Intel quad core.. it's not even a real quad core. :P). Few programs utilize multiple cores--and you don't need multiple cores to run day-to-day programs like Firefox. Hell, I run Firefox with few hiccups on a 400MHz processor back from the 90s.
Sure, right now there wouldn't be much of a difference, but I could see most software being written for multiple processors in the near future. But I don't know for sure, so that's part of why I made this thread.
Also, right now at Dell, the difference between the quad-core and dual-core is about $50, so I would go with the quad core if I don't get the AMD.
Regarding AMD vs. Intel, the stories I've heard lately suggest that AMD is behind in performance and that Intel basically left them in the dust with the Core 2 Duo series.
As far as single vs. dual core goes, without a doubt go dual core. Sure you can surf the web on a single processor 400mhz machine but when you reach that webpage that sucks your whole machine comes to a screeching halt. I also like the fact that I can still have a responsive computer when stupid things like Adobe Acrobat decide they want to hang and hog a whole cpu. This one is a no brainer, anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
Dual vs. Quad is interesting, but I think ultimately this comes up to personal choice and what they want right now. If $50 isn't going to break the bank on this build then you might as well go ahead and do it. Afterall having extra cpu cycles is better than spending $1000+ and not having enough. I think the market is also trending towards multiple cores so you'll be ahead of the curve here.
If you step back and look at what is likely to change in the next 3-4 years that will make you want a new computer, cpu really isn't one of them. It'll probably be up and coming things like bluray/hd-dvd.
Thanks for the advice, zorm.
And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. ::)
Quote from: Killer360 on July 31, 2007, 03:26:14 PM
And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. ::)
He obviously doesn't want to build a computer, nor does he have (easy) access to newegg. In fact, you're in Winnipeg, how do you use it? Last time I tried, they said "sorry, we don't ship outside the US!!"
Quote from: iago on July 31, 2007, 04:13:14 PM
Quote from: Killer360 on July 31, 2007, 03:26:14 PM
And everyone just completely ignored my post... how lovely. ::)
He obviously doesn't want to build a computer, nor does he have (easy) access to newegg. In fact, you're in Winnipeg, how do you use it? Last time I tried, they said "sorry, we don't ship outside the US!!"
I don't use it. I guessed Rule was an American like a lot of other people are here.
Whatever.
I'd also recommend multicore as well. Definitely a major difference for me going from a single core box to a dual core box for my main workstation.
I'd go for quad core if you're seriously interested in things like isolating things in VMs as far as dedicated computing hardwaare. A 4proc is *lots* of room to expand, and enough that even if you are giving VMs multiple virtual processors, say 2 per VM, one core getting pegged won't cause the kind of negative performance spiral you would get if you were having 2-proc VMs on a 2-way box (in such a case I would just go for single proc VMs).
For desktop stuff, quad core is likely to be much less noticible than dual core in the general case. Again, I've noticed a significant gain in terms of keeping large numbers of VMs running smoothingly with 4-way over 2-way, but that is probably not something you would be running on, say, a gaming machine.